This is the place for your questions, propositions, formal debate topics, etc. but they do have to be approved by the Moderator before they will be published visibly, and must not address opponents disrespectfully, if at all. The subjects have to be simple or straightforward and kept on topic.

I recently read the first newsletter of the late Bradley Smith. In it he makes a point that he heard from Fritz Berg. I have only heard this point raised once previously, and that was also by Fritz Berg (see below).
It concerns the crematoria in camps alleged to be purpose-built 'extermination camps' like at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, etc. I'd be grateful for any replies that follow this boards rules regarding providing references in support of any information, to a few questions.

Q1. Isn't it alleged that these crematoria had been purposefully designed for the purpose of disposing and hiding of the bodies of the victims of a planned genocide of approximately eleven million Jews? (Wannsee protocol)Q2. If so, how to explain this irrefutable contradiction that the design of the still-existing crematoria presents?

Bradley Smith wrote:Meanwhile, Fritz Berg opened my eyes to two important points:

The design function of a crematory oven:
A crematory oven is designed so that the fuel used to consume its human load is located outside the oven itself. The reason for this is to keep separate the residue of the corpse as it settles on the clean bed of the oven from the trash left by the coke or coal that fueled it. The uncontaminated ashes and bone can then be collected and placed in a container for return to the deceased's family. The crematory oven, unlike a furnace, is designed to fulfil the needs of ritual and religion.

If the Germans had planned to destroy the remains of millions of murdered victims they would in all likelihood have designed furnaces capable of burning several, or even many, corpses at once, and would not have worried about the human residue falling into the fuel firing the furnace, as all of it was going to be done away with anyhow.
-- Bradley Smith. April/May 1990.

Fritz Berg wrote:Note the fact that "COKE" was the fuel used for Nazi cremations. Coke is far more expensive than coal and made sense ONLY if one wanted an attractive cremain, largely free of any fuel ash. That makes no sense at all if one wanted to simply dispose of the remains of Jews as alleged — with NO trace.

In support of this argument, there also exist contemporary photographs of urns for collecting the ashes of cremated inmates. This also appears to demonstrate that it is a false allegation that these crematoria were part of a purposefully designed and secret programme using 'factories of death' for killing and disappearing millions of Jewish people.

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:

Cremation and Incineration in Kremas 2 and 3 with POISON GAS from Coke

Cremation and crematoria are misused to explain the fact that there simply is no forensic medical or scientific evidence (like autopsies) of any gassings. Supposedly, all of the physical evidence went up in smoke. How convenient for those who might otherwise be pressed for real evidence... Many thousands of dead bodies (from other causes, primarily disease) were found in the camps at the end of the war, but all of the “gassing” victims had been vaporised, supposedly.

Urns for containing individual's ashes photographed at the war's end at Buchenwald

Where one should expect huge crematory ovens, or incinerators to dispose of enormous numbers of bodies, with co-mingling of the remains and fuel ash — one finds instead, small crematory ovens designed to burn only one body at a time consistent with ordinary cremations as practiced around the world.
The remains from corpses were put into individual urns and returned to family members. In other words, there was nothing at all like the “assembly-line killing and/or disposal of bodies” that has been alleged. To appreciate the disaster that Germany and much of Europe, especially eastern Europe, were dealing with — one should read Earth-Burial and Cremation about disease and the necessity for cremation in nineteenth century America.

Urns from Natzweiler Cremation only makes sense if one intends to return a portion of the actual ashes of a corpse to the true family members; otherwise, cremation makes no sense at all.
Cremation is distinguished from incineration by the fact that cremation, in the West, allows recovery of the deceased person's ashes free of the ashes from other corpses or of the fuel. The clean ash that results is totally worthless compared to the far greater costs of the coal, or coke, needed to produce it. The claim that the Nazis made fertilizer from the bones is a bad joke indeed. Crematory ovens are specially designed to allow recovery of ashes from one corpse at a time free of any other ash, either from the coal or coke used as fuel or from another corpse. Such a careful recovery of ashes only makes sense if one intends to return something from the deceased to the family. In other words, the purpose of cremation is to preserve, at least some, evidence.
If one intended to merely destroy evidence of mass murder, incineration as is commonly practiced for garbage disposal would be many times quicker and more efficient in every respect, especially in terms of the amounts of fuel consumed. One could still gather enough ashes to fill urns and deceive family members but, oddly enough, it has never been claimed in any of the Holocaust literature that garbage incinerators were ever used for anything but garbage. Even the incinerators within Kremas 2 and 3 in Birkenau have never been implicated.

The startling fact is that by practicing cremation the Nazis and the SS went to considerable lengths and expense to treat the dead with genuine respect even when many of the dead were Jews. See also Documents F1 and F2 in Pressac, page 133.

Note the fact that "COKE" was the fuel used for Nazi cremations. Coke is far more expensive than coal and made sense ONLY if one wanted an attractive cremain, largely free of any fuel ash. That makes no sense at all if one wanted to simply dispose of the remains of Jews as alleged — with NO trace.

Q3. Is there a 'holocaust history' explanation for this contradiction?
They only one I know of is that it was part of a scam to earn money. Viz. That false ashes were being sent to the loved ones of the prisoners who died there for a fee. But that explanation doesn't seem credible concerning Birkenau-Auschwitz?

After having paid a certain sum of money, family members of the deceased prisoners were sent urns containing the sham ashes of their relatives.

Urns appear in numerous photographs taken near the remnants of the 'new crematorium' at Majdanek in the weeks after liberation:

Urns for containing individual's ashes photographed at the war's end at Majdanek

Q4. Is it even a credible explanation for Majdanek? For example is there any proof for this scam allegation? It seems to be a circular argument to explain away empirical evidence that does not support the mass-gassing, genocide narrative. I.e. it appears to be an allegation to explain away empirical evidence that actually contradicts the holocaust narrative.

"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Q1. Isn't it alleged that these crematoria had been purposefully designed for the purpose of disposing and hiding of the bodies of the victims of a planned genocide of approximately eleven million Jews?

A1. Court-recognised Auschwitz expert Van Pelt claimed Krema IV and Krema V were designed and built as death factories.

With the appeasement of the provincial authorities, Hoss and his staff were free to enlarge the camp further. Bischoff drew up a new master plan for the transformation of Auschwitz-Birkenau into a 200,000-inmate labor pool for the armaments industry. The expansion was realized by adding an extra building sector of 60,000 prisoners to the south side of BA I. To keep up with camp mortality, a second crematorium was to be built opposite the first, on the west side of the camp at the end of the neutral zone between BA I and BA II.

These two crematoria, numbered II and III (crematorium I was in the main camp), had no extra incineration capacity to handle the corpses of those gassed in the bunkers which, physically, were located outside Birkenau and which, administratively, belonged to the main camp. [38] Bischoff sketched two smaller incineration installations, each of which was to be equipped with the two stripped-down three-muffle furnaces which had been planned in January but canceled in February. Crematorium IV was to be erected next to the "little white house," and crematorium V next to the "little red house." Each was to have an anticipated incineration capacity of 576 corpses per day.

Topf suggested equipping the two crematoria with a new-model double-four-muffle (or eight-muffle) incinerator that had been developed for use in Russia and was readily available. Bischoff approved, and had blueprints drawn up on 14 August. [39] Prüfer visited Auschwitz a few days later and left with orders for five triple-muffle furnaces for crematorium III and two double-four-muffle ovens for crematoria IV and V. [40]

Crematoria IV and V were the first buildings designed, from inception, to operate as killing machines, with gas chambers, a morgue, and a furnace hall arranged in a functional sequence. [41] Bunkers 1 and 2, crematorium I, and, as we shall see, crematorium II and III were all transformed into extermination centers.

We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:Q1. Isn't it alleged that these crematoria had been purposefully designed for the purpose of disposing and hiding of the bodies of the victims of a planned genocide of approximately eleven million Jews?

A1. Court-recognised Auschwitz expert Van Pelt claimed Krema IV and Krema V were designed and built as death factories.

...Höss and his staff were free to enlarge the camp further. Bischoff drew up a new master plan for the transformation of Auschwitz-Birkenau into a 200,000-inmate labour pool for the armaments industry. ...To keep up with camp mortality, a second crematorium was to be built opposite the first, on the west side of the camp at the end of the neutral zone between BA I and BA II.

These two crematoria, numbered II and III (crematorium I was in the main camp), had no extra incineration capacity to handle the corpses of those gassed in the bunkers which, physically, were located outside Birkenau and which, administratively, belonged to the main camp. [38] Bischoff sketched two smaller incineration installations, each of which was to be equipped with the two stripped-down three-muffle furnaces which had been planned in January but canceled in February. Crematorium IV ...and crematorium V [were] to have an anticipated incineration capacity of 576 corpses per day.

Topf suggested equipping the two crematoria with a new-model double-four-muffle (or eight-muffle) incinerator... Bischoff approved, and had blueprints drawn up on 14 August. [39] Prüfer visited Auschwitz a few days later and left with orders for five triple-muffle furnaces for crematorium III and two double-four-muffle ovens for crematoria IV and V. [40]

Crematoria IV and V were the first buildings designed, from inception, to operate as killing machines, with gas chambers, a morgue, and a furnace hall arranged in a functional sequence.[41] Bunkers 1 and 2, crematorium I, and, as we shall see, crematorium II and III were all transformed into extermination centers.

Thanks.
So, despite this 'holocaust history' claim, the individual muffles in the crematoria (Krema) IV and V were NOT designed for the most efficient method to hide the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of corpses resulting from a secret, genocidal mass-murder.
INSTEAD, completely normal crematoria were designed and built for burning one corpse at a time in order to produce pure cremains of each corpse to be given to relatives of the deceased.
Which is obviously very odd 'planning' and construction, if the holocaust-allegation was accurate that these were designed as 'factories of death' for proposed millions?

In other words IF Krema IV and Krema V were designed to dispose of millions of victims of a secret genocide in the easiest, quickest, cheapest and MOST EFFICIENT way possible, in order that the cremains/ashes could be made to disappear, WHY were they instead built as perfectly normal, slow, single-corpse crematoria that used expensive fuel which enabled the pure cremains/ashes of each cremated indivual to be collected and placed in urns?
Fritz Berg has highlighted yet another aspect of the currently enforced 'holocaust history' that makes no sense and defies logic.

. . . . . .

Germar Rudolf has highlighted another related contradiction:

Germar Rudolf wrote:Between January 18 and March 10, 1972, two architects responsible for the design and construction of the crematoria in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, were put on trial in Vienna, Austria.11 During the trial, an expert report on the possible interpretation of the blueprints ...of the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria was presented to the court. Thanks to this first methodologically sound expert report on Auschwitz, the defendants were acquitted. A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz by Germar Rudolf [2001]

"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

"Incineration" would have made sense — "cremation" makes no sense at all for anything like an extermination program.

In Kremas 2 and 3 there were incinerators for garbage which could have been used far more easily to dispose of human remains at far less expense. No one would have cared about co-mingling of human remains from an extermination program.